are looking to set and place their own system to streamline to make sure they're requesting only what they need and acting as clip -- quickly as possible. in to give the status reports and updates. and to have frequent conversations with but those that are involved in these tragedies that you refer to end up holmes stayed there is the tragedy we take that responsibility seriously. >> and we will follow up with any sort of measures that may be necessary and for those reasons to prolong

the closure of the tragedy. >> i have the final question with criminal justice reform levy be aware in north carolina with the reinvestment act to reduce recidivism and improvisation and full dash am probation violation. do you share any concerns you would like us to work gone? i know you're getting support but i was curious. >> a very important issue that i appreciate the efforts of everyone to work with us. with respect to potential

changes of criminals and firearms offenses we're working at the staff level to make sure we move forward with reform to still deal with the serious issues raised in from the department polenta of view even if those are not the issues we do feel there should be a presentation to the relevant judge. every day la forward to talking further. i commend north carolina on the reinvestment act because over the last several years we were down for what we're all extremely grateful. >> eight you for being here and i will start by thanking

you for your focus on sex trafficking in the implementation of the trafficking act that we have worked so hard for go and i have had good results in to stand for that anti-a tracking coronation teams. the twin cities are one of them but you have 86 percent increase of convictions compared dash 14% can you comment with what is happening with the piece of the bill to develop a national strategy to combat human trafficking? >> with respect to tremendous excess to raise the conviction rate and the

ability to open those cases so to bring six more cities and districts on board hoping for better results as well. and the tip of the speaker of the approach to do with human trafficking that partnership with the vhs and the department of labor to enable us to not only bring the case but a real support for the victims of trafficking because the trauma doesn't end with a conviction. along with the bill on the issue a national strategy is in progress but as part of that the team that has been in his into a collaboration between department of labor and doj and a homeland

security. . . >> also supporting the ngos that the survivors turn to. they often don't call law enforcement first. >> we look forward to continuing that work. we have cases in the twin cities with islamic extremism

recruiting of extremists, a number of ink statement saying convictions in all of our federal enforcement is working together and doing a good job here. the violent extremism is very important. it's worth three areas were featured where the twin cities in terms of the work there during, can you tell me what doj is doing and we are continuing to try to get more money of the budget for this effort? >> thank you very much. a very happy the twin cities is a pilot city in our program for combating violent extremism. focusing on those communities, listening to them and what they need. that will be helpful to us as we develop it. we have a strong enforcement piece when it comes to combating violent extremism and particularly the home grown extremists we see here in the country. most recently within the last two years we have seen individuals seeking to leave the

u.s. to travel overseas, we have prosecuted more than 85 individual so far. of great concern is the fact that over the years that the ages dropping. they are getting younger and younger, the median age is 21 years or less. we are seeing more young women being involved. not a majority but those numbers are increasing. >> right, i appreciate the law-enforcement piece of it. the concept was to intervene early when schools another see signs of it. i believe we still have more private money in it and we have some federal money so we are really trying to push hard to get the additional funds. >> to be very helpful. i think the twin cities will be a good example of that. one thing we are doing is working with silicon valley in the tech industry to help us as well as madison avenue, to provide assistance from the nongovernmental side and combating violent extremism. i think think it is better to say the government is not necessarily the best messenger for that.

we are not the voice of young people who are on the edge are going to listen to first. >> i would agree. i'm glad we're doing that. if we want to use this model where we're try to identify kids early in the coordinate the community to circle around them, we probably need funding to get some of that going. the white house featured our area so that is where we are continuing to work to get that done. my last question is about the cops program, senator murkowski and i leading this effort for the reauthorization. i think you how important as someone who has been a prosecutor funding of the local level is for community policing. could you talk about the grants and how an increase in funding would be helpful? >> with respect, we we recently have within our cops program some grants for local law-enforcement dealing with the heroin issues.

that program essentially for financial reasons has been shifted, i don't want since been taken away because in fact it now resides within dea. dea is going to have six additional heroine based task forces to deal with this issue. obviously while those in poland state local law-enforcement officers we understand that the prior cops program was a great source of support for local law-enforcement, as they had targeted efforts that were very effective as well. we greatly appreciate your and senators efforts. murkowski of alaska. we have a good team. the last thing. >> the last thing i want to mention is on the op edit bill

and we look for to continuing to work with the justice department. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your courtesies and your leadership. we appreciate that. the number of questions that are important and will have time to go into fully today, i would like to race among them. first, in response to my colleague senator durbin, the leading republican candidate said we should have a moratorium on immigration from muslim immigration until we figure out what is happening. not a permanent ban. i want to say it is critically important that the american people and everybody knows that when a person is in our country, they are entitled to have their religion respected. the constitution guarantees the free

exercise of religion and that must be honored. i would note that nato commander philip testified before the armed services committee not long ago, that terrorists are infiltrating refugees in europe where he is the commander and that isis is spreading like cancer within this mix. he even said russia's action in syria has a wildly exacerbated the problem. if it's into a strategy of using nonmilitary means to divide nato. this is not a little matter. i know you know that. i will not go into the details about it. with regard to drug situation that is happening today and increase in heroine of the deaths that we're seeing, do you believe law-enforcement plays a critical role in reducing the abuse of drugs, at reducing heroin and cocaine and deaths

that are now current? >> thank you. as we discussed this epidemic it is a grave concern for us. law-enforcement's has an important role to play particularly in the interdiction of hair when trafficking. the apprehension of those who are bringing heroin both into the country and spreading it throughout. >> i would agree with that. the interdiction is is probably a key thing for the federal official, although that is not all. they are major drug dealing networks in major city and throughout the city and in rural areas too. they need to be attacked by federal officers. but the interdiction i think is verse. i was i suggest to you that a more secure border is essential because isn't it true that the majority of the cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine amount that we are seen in america is coming across the border of mexico? >> with respect to methamphetamine, a lot is made here. >> i know a lot is made here but

isn't the majority, across from mexico question mac. >> i cannot give you -- >> what about heroine. >> certainly the mexican border is a major shipment point for heroin and cocaine. >> the majority. >> when i was prosecuting we we had airplanes about some things of that nature and different areas coming in. the trend has changed and we have seen the movement across the mexican border, have have we not? >> it has certainly grown to rival other areas although i would hesitate to say that we take art attention away from the ports, the ships, the boats. >> i think it clear to clearly is a majority. it was noted 47,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2014 and it is still rising. that is one. that is one drug overdose death every 12 minutes. 61% involved opiates, the opal

had overdose in the opiate overdose has tripled 6000, national survey of drug use and health under this administration leadership produced a report sent there were approximately 169,000 new heroin users in 2013 alone. the substance abuse and mental health services and 2014 found 589,000 people in the united states had an opiate disordered. this is a huge thing. this destroys lives. not just overdose deaths. people unable to function and work anymore. families are destroyed. people destroy their whole careers, young people destroyed their ability to have a financial secure future.

they commit crimes and in furtherance of these addictions. the dea administrator chuck rosenberg noted that 120 people die a day of her when overdose in the united states. what i'm saying to you is, and and you indicate that law-enforcement plays a key role, but the center for disease control prevention noted that law-enforcement must intensify its efforts to reduce the availability of heroin, fennel and other illegal opiates, would you agree to that? speemac's early that is an important goal and a goal of ours. >> mr. rosenberg said those that must have the tools they need to attack criminal groups who facilitate drug addiction, do group that. >> those are a major target ours both here and overseas.

as you also noted with the number of new heroin users every year, over one 60,000 sadly over 80% of those our prior prescription drug abusers. we also continue our efforts both from enforcement perspective and prevention perspective in the prescription drug. >> i appreciate that. are you aware of the fact that your own executive office of the united states attorney that operate under your direction, at the end of 2015 found six month average of drug prosecution by the u.s. department of justice was down 21% compared to five years ago? are you aware that excluding prosecutions in federal magistrate court that six month average was nearly 32% lower at the end of 2015 the five years ago? >> the number does not surprise me because we have moved through a process of focusing less on the lower level individual offenders toward targeting the

traffic networks that you have noted. those are really the focus of ours. we will have evolved -- >> i would say to you that i have heard that argument that we are also always focusing on higher people. i do not believe that. the attorney general has abandoned the equitable sharing of drug proceeds with local law-enforcement which is degenerating the cooperation needed to attack these gangs. we are proposing more reductions and sentences after senator durbin and i agreed on a reduction plan that passed and reduced cocaine significantly. now we have to have more. prison population prison population is declining at a rapid rate, it was down 5000 last year, the budget for the prisons is being raised deuce as a result a substantial decline in

population. at the same time, the drug use is surging. deaths are occurring. in my opinion it is going to get worse. mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership and i enjoyed working with you. >> it looks to me like we had coons and then senator graham. i would like to go over there to have a vote right now or soon and vote and come back here. i would like to have seven more minutes with the attorney general. >> would you like me to chair? >> would you please. >> yes sir. >> you will be the last one to turn the lights out. so that is the way we'll plan it then, is that okay with you? senator coons now. >> thank you chairman grassley.

jimmy grassley i was encouraged at the beginning of the hearing at your comment that you believe our bipartisan sentence reform bill may soon be able to move forward. i'm pleased also the comprehensive reduction act which is a comprehensive effort is also moved forward. it is possible for this committee to make bipartisan progress. although rare, it is possible. i was also encouraged by your comments on the response to the question on senator hatch. let me start by thinking you met him attorney general and all the men and women of federal law-enforcement for what you do to tackle very difficult issues facing our country. from drug addiction and counterterrorism to the healing relationship between law enforcement and the community they serve. let me start with a few critical issues that relate to the support for state and local law-enforcement. gun violence has been a significant problem for my home town in delaware, the department reduction network has a

tremendous positive impact so far. the program is now the second round of the city partnership, i am hopeful the department intends to continue to support it and expend it. that there is some likelihood that the annual conference will be held and i would be interested in hearing what sort of improvements you see being implemented in the violence reduction network this year and how you see the program in the future? >> i think you. on behalf of the men and women in the department of justice, all the law-enforcement agencies as well as the staff who work to support them, the lawyers that implement their cases, i cases, i think you for your comments about their service and i greatly appreciate your recognition of them. i i am proud to represent them every day. the violence reduction network is an important tool. we have have found it to be one of the ways in which we have been able to bring focus, law-enforcement resources at a very cost-effective way to jurisdictions that have been struggling with historically

high crime rates. in wilmington, delaware it has been one of our success stories. we have asked for more money in the budget for, for fy 2017. $5 million is not a lot compared to other things that we ask for. certainly the benefit will be great. we currently already have at least ten or 12 cities and we are planning on bringing five more cities on board. as you know from your experience, to be a city it requires a certain level of crime that we do not every city to aspire to. the lessons we feel could be very useful to other jurisdictions, one of the things were going to be doing this summer in the summer of 2016 is to convene about 20 cities that are not in the network but have similar issues to a conference with o jp to share the ideas and best practices that we have been able to glean from working with cities like wilmington, little rock, flint and others.

not only do we find it to be a program but we hope it is help let the local level. we feel that as with so many efforts that are anchored by our state and local partners it will be a program that will provide leadership in guidance for other jurisdictions that are struggling with the same issue. >> thank you. i intend to continue to support the brn and the appropriations as well. i returned briefly to two other programs that i think have shown positive impact for delaware and i think can, and should be more fully supported federally. one is the justice reinvestment initiative. delaware participated in an early, our general assembly made a number of changes to our criminal justice system. we have seen positive impacts as a result. i would be interested in hearing how you see the future of the justice reinvestment initiative. also mention the victims of child abuse act, we work to get that reauthorize. i was somewhat disappointed the

president's budget request was half of what we hoped for. the bullet proof vest act which provides appropriate bullet proof vest for local law enforcement around the country. i think all of these are programs that provide real meaningful assistance to local law enforcement and help strengthen the criminal justice reform movement in the case of the justice reinvestment initiative. could you briefly comment on how these programs fit into your overall objectives to improve law-enforcement and country? >> thank you for the chance to talk about them and for raising these programs together's because because they highlight that criminal justice reform will have an anchor that comes from this committee and body and from statutory changes. it also is going to be managed by how we interact and support our state and local partners, for example the bullet proof vest initiative. as we support officer safety, officer health and support

issues. also how we deal with the victims of child abuse. the justice reinvestment act is something also extremely important to us because those funds are used to support changes both and local laws and also the probation system. we have have states that have been able to close the provisions and have seen significant traps and crying. criminal justice reform for us is really a long-range view of the entire system. these programs a particular focus on three specific elements of it. they show how everything comes together as it were. in a way that supports a holistic review of the criminal justice system and that by supporting victims, by supporting local jurisdictions in their effort, and by supporting local law-enforcement we will all have different community. >> we have a lot of work to do together in improving public safety and healing some of the rift between communities and law-enforcement. i'm grateful

for your leadership. let me ask the last question. in the shelby county decision, the supreme court significantly weekend someone would say gutted and on a bipartisan basis 42 of us are trying to advance of the voting rights advancement act. senator murkowski is a cosponsor, senator leahy and others. what difference do you think having this committee take up the voters rights act would make. >> thank every question and thank you for your leadership in this area. i think this committee is it takes up the important matter. consideration of the act and the department has been working with a group on this and is happy to continue. we think it would help restore an important part of the department's arsenal in protecting the voting rights of all americans. it's vital to us to look at this in a way in which we protect everyone's right to vote. the citizen on the street, or service member, are elderly,

people have trouble getting to the polls, all polls, all of those individuals are of concern to us. certainly we thank you for your efforts and looking for a way to provide legislative support to those efforts. we look forward to working with you and this committee as it considers the matter. >> the right to vote has been described as the most foundational right and democracy and nearly a sacred right. i hope that we can find a way to make progress in ensuring all americans have access to the ballot in the right to vote. thank you for your service and leadership as attorney general. >> thank you senator. >> madame attorney general, welcome to the committee. >> the morning. >> thank you for the job you do for the country. have you ever discussed the clinton e-mail with president obama or anyone else at the white house? >> know, so i have not. >> do you anticipate that happening? >> no, sir i do not do not. >> so when joshua speaks about investigation talks about basically to reassure the american people that this is no big deal, do you know where he gets that information from?

>> senator, no i do not. i can us or you -- >> can you tell him he should probably stay silent. >> it is my hope that when it comes on going and best we would all stay silent. i can assure you i nor anyone from the department has a brief mr. ernest or anyone at the white house about this matter or other law-enforcement matter. >> he's operating on his own i take it? >> i'm simply not aware of the source of the information. >> thank you very much. have you seen more threats to the homeland, more than today and in the past? to agree there are more threats on our homeland today than there has been in recent memory? >> i think those threats have increased, yes sir. >> sequestration, if we go back to sequestration path next year, what damage will it due to your ability to protect this nation?

>> sequestration would cause harm to the department's ability to protect harmon areas of national security as well as other law-enforcement function. >> you will have less fbi agent dealing with counterterrorism, zechariah? >> we would. >> you would have less capability to deal with growing cyber threat. >> that is correct. >> when it comes to the problem with apple and san bernadino, would you support legislation requiring apple and other technology technology to create technological backdoors made available to the government in terrorism cases? would you support legislation to that? >> certainly we would review whatever was proposed and work with this committee or others to talk about the issues and to make sure that what ever was crafted would cover the range of issues that arise. the reason might we have focused on litigation in a case-by-case basis is that we have noted every platform is different. every issue is different.

we have been trying to deal with the situation with our discussion with the tech company. >> would you be willing to draft legislation, provide to the committee your ideas of what legislation should look like to accomplish the goals? >> i do not think the department is that a point where we are drafting legislation here. as i indicated we are happy to work with you and others on the committee as you consider proposal. >> if china went to apple in china and said we want a backdoor key to all iphones in china, what would your response be? >> certainly think the company would have a strong response there. >> would you support apple's request to say no to china? >> we are not asking for a backdoor here, i do not see us supporting a backdoor elsewhere. >> it seems to meet the judicial decision basically is requiring apple to create technological devices or to create a system that would be able to get into

the phones, that's not true? >> what we are asking apple to do is to essentially effectuate a system that would remove the password blocker. the password blocker destroys information. >> best not to unlock the phone? >> no, we would have to buy their own way into the pole. the password blocker destroys the information on the device if you guess the password incorrectly ten times. we would like the opportunity -- >> would you support the chinese government's request request to do the same thing? >> i do not think i would be pining on the chinese government's request. >> the point i am raising is if we ask companies here we are setting precedents for russia, china and other countries. >> senator, think one of the issues raised by that question i think you are raising it is that it creates a false equivalency without legal systems with other countries, with our moral system and the way in which we do

business. >> we are the good guys and their the back i. >> we have a system of laws that have worked for a number of years. >> i agree with the good guys. >> with corporate america to allow them to provide information to us from a variety of ways, systems and devices, and protect ribas at the same time. those have not led to the parade of horrible's as often described whenever those a particular changes are made. >> one of the arguments apple makes is that there are other companies create encryption, from a terrorist point of view you are not limited to apple iphones to communicate, are you? >> i think terrorist use any device they can't. >> this encryption issue, if you required apple to unlock that phone, that does, that does not deny terrorists the ability to communicate privately, does it? there other ways they can do this? >> we have servicing terrorist using a variety of encrypted platform for communication. >> getting the information to this particular phone does not protect terrace from using

encrypted devices beyond apple. in terms of apple's point of view, do you think their argument that if you require us to do this that it will hurt their market share? it would put them at a disadvantage to other companies that produce products outside the united states question of. >> i have seen it apple's marketing analysis for that. >> some company in switzerland says want to buy or iphones, you don't have to worry about the american government or any other government being able to break the encryption. >> again, i think it would depend upon how people view that and how they rated as an important feature. howell compared to apple devices. >> so we are balancing the information were trying to get on this individual case against a president we may be setting that other countries could follow, we are also having to balance the idea that terrorist can use encryption outside of

apple. we also have to balance the idea that we may be hurting american companies competing globally. those are the four things that were looking at. >> i am not going to cabin the issues at this time. i think for us the issue is about a criminal investigation into a terrorist act and the need to obtain evidence. >> but it is just not so simple. i will end the with this. i thought it was simple until i started getting brief by people in the intel community and i'm a person who has been moved by the arguments of the president we sat and that damage we may be doing to our own national security. i have definitely moved to any member of the committee who has moved very passionate about this, introduced legislation requiring the apple technology companies to do what you want the judges to do. i would like to look at it. there's not enough to

complain. if you think these companies should be required to do this, let's sit down and see if we can introduce legislation. i doubt many people will do that. thank you for your fine work on behalf of our country. >> thank you sir. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you madame attorney general for the excellent work you're doing and your dedicated and energetic work on behalf of law-enforcement over many years. i want to ask about the freedom of access to clinic and princes act, the face act. i was involved with enforcing when i said attorney general for the state of connecticut. it was passed in 1994 after a particularly troubling time in our nation's history involving threats and attacks on clinics. it continues to serve a vital role in our nation. recently the decades long tacked on the exercise of reproductive

rights have taken the form of a series of highly edited deceptive and extremely inflammatory set of videos targeted planned parenthood. i wonder if you could tell me whether the fbi has noticed an increase in the number of violence incidents targeting abortion providers since the release of those videos beginning in july 2015? >> senator you raise important issues and it's an important forstmann area for the department. the fbi under severance division and our u.s. attorneys offices. i do not believe i have the statistics on the increase on the number of face act of violation since those but videos have surfaced. certainly we are in connection with the colorado shooting while the state investigation is proceeding. we are still reviewing that as a possible possible face act violation although that case is proceeding in state court as a murder case. it is an active area of enforcement. i don't have the information on the data since that particular time.

>> i wonder if i could ask you to provide any data about the number of incidents and also prosecution. >> certainly. >> i wonder if you could also tell the committee whether the department of justice is taking any increase in enforcement activity with respect to incidents of violence or threatening violence? >> i know that with respect to -- and not limiting to the time since the videos were introduced into the public domain, but for the past five or six years and the of cases that we have charged under the the face statue has increased. we have charged a total of 12 cases criminally and nine cases civilly. i get that is over the entire course of this administration, not limited to just that time. we have seen that uptake over the past five or six years. where taking those cases seriously.

>> thank you. the department of justice was very responsive to a number of requests that i have made. i thank you for the responsiveness that it has shown, for example on the general motors investigation for deliberate concealment of the ignition switch defect where there has been a prosecution and results, with the airbags where there's an ongoing investigation into deliberate concealment of test results suggesting dangers for those airbags. volkswagen for the use of a device to aid admissions testing , recent indications of potential collusion by airlines on so-called capacity discipline

, and a number of others. i hope you agree the public interest is well served by prompt inclusion of these investigations. also where there are prosecutions, potentially against individual corporate officers, there is an important deterrent effect as the deputy attorney general indicated in a memo september 9 of last year, prosecutions against individuals, corporate officers, where there is evidence i where there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt will encourage compliance with the law by corporations and those individuals and that will be to the good of not only the public

in general but also the corporation's shareholders and its employees. >> yes, we certainly do. we certainly feel that the new individual accountability policy which essentially puts the onus on those corporations wanted to cooperate to also provide information about individual wrongdoing and also requires, and a more systematic manner, that we make sure that we are considering those issues in every corporate case. we think it is a very important part in the issues you have race. for corporate accountability as well as public knowledge. >> i have also asked for an investigation of ever source in connection with potential miss use of h1d visas. i hope that perhaps you could respond to that request if it is possible to do so. >> certainly, sir. >> i want to ask finally about

the so-called charleston loophole. i know you are familiar with the situation that enabled dylan roof to buy the firearm he used to massacre innocent people in the charleston church. the charleston loophole in effect enabled him to get a gun after the expiration of the 72 hours hours without the completion of a background check. i wonder if even as we work towards a legislative fix, which i have proposed, whether the department has been able to take steps that may enable prompt completion a background check. >> thank you for the opportunity to comment on our work in this area. as i recommended to the president and discussed in prior testimony, one of of the things the department is working on is improving the systems within our background system the mix system so to speak.

as looked at west virginia by dedicated employees, all of whom who were heartbroken at the issues that led to mr. ruth being able to obtain that firearm. the current law is it that if a background check is not concluded within a three day. the licensed firearm dealer is free to go ahead and conclude the transaction. many do not. many actually do wait if they have not gotten a definitive answer. but they are lawfully allowed to go ahead and sell the firearms in many do. in this case that is what happened. the person the person did submit the information, because of issues of geography and the counties and confusion caused therein, the information did not receive the examiner in time to stop that purchase. we are undertaking a review of the computer systems of this facility, we are also undertaking through higher, almost double more those individuals, doubling the number of examiners so we can comply within that three day.

area to extend that period would require congressional action. should congress congress consider that we will work with you to drafted the appropriate legislation. we are looking to operate with a sufficient as possible. that's a framework. our goal is to essentially strengthen and prove the next system so it can be fully responsive in the allotted time. >> thank you. finally, the topic of gun violence as you may know i have introduced legislation that would repeal the so-called protection of lawful commerce in arms act, also known as paco. the department of justice has repeatedly defended the law against challenges to its constitutionality. as you well know the department of justice also has a history of declining to defend laws it believes is unconstitutional, most recently with the marriage

act. i believe a a compelling arguments have been made against popular constitutionality on to process, taking cause grounds as well as the tenth amendment. i wonder if you would consider and look carefully at the possibility, in affected declining to. >> i have not been involved with placa on those grounds so i'm not aware of what we have done. we may have opinions and have done a review so far. if there's more information and analysis you like to provide we would consider that. i do not know the analysis done to date on that. >> thank you. thank you for your service. >> my stay staff is tell me to go votes and i know you want to ask more questions.

>> if you let me go now, will you let me go now? [inaudible] >> i think a senator brought up in put it a little different way, about secretary clinton's e-mail arrangements, can i say something? i've often been accused about asking about secretary clinton's e-mails sent she is run for president. to make the record clear, in june 2013i started asking questions about this as it related to one of her counselors email and conflict of interest and stuff like that. that is where this all started, long time before she was running for

president. recently a senior on name to law-enforcement official told the washington post about it in a unity agreement with the state department staffer who maintained her e-mail server. yet, you, attorney general, have not answered the committee's questions about the nature and status of that investigation. does the immunity agreement contain a provision requiring that staffer to cooperate with all government inquiries, including committees that i have have requested and if not, why not? would you provide a copy of that agreement to the committee? >> again, thank you for your recent letter on this also. we are providing a response to your letter in writing. so i do not want to get ahead of that as we review the issues that you have raised there. i believe you have asked for a

copy of that document. we typically do not provide copies of documents as part of ongoing investigations but we are preparing a response to your letter on those issues. similarly, we don't go into the details of the agreements that we have with any witness in any matter. an ongoing investigations. senator, i know as you mentioned you have race this issues a in the context of reviewing another matter a few years ago and you are following through now. what i would say is that my response to this is the sign as it is to other questions on ongoing matters, whether now weatherize u.s. attorney earl for alina system. the consistency with which the department handles the ongoing matters, whether they involve someone who has a famous last name or not it is something we take very seriously.

our desire not to discuss this matter in open hearings, or in the press is not out of a desire to evade your questions are certainly this committee's oversight responsibilities. oversight responsibilities. it is how we handle ongoing matters. i certainly hope it is taken in that way. we treat them the same. that is how the public has confidence in the investigations we conduct. >> if that latter comment is about something i said in my opening statement, it was about the appearance, no accusation. >> certainly. >> okay, now now what you just to me about immunity, i'm telling you just what common sense tells me. if immunity immunity in certain instances, the only simple question we're asking is does that immunity carry over to congressional communities? we asked without immunity, the console for pagliaro united and it seemed to me a simple question. if it covers him for justice

department matters, why wouldn't it cover him so he could testify before congress? you don't have to talk about that now but i hope the letter will address that. me go to the fbi whistleblowers. the committee has put a bill on the agenda for tomorrow, this is something that ranking member leahy and i really agree on. to provide better protection for fbi whistleblowers i would hope that we'll be able to move forward with the bill earlier. it is truly bipartisan legislation that we need to take up. one problem, the bill tackles is protection for fbi employees who report wrongdoing within their chain of command. director, director, he said in december that he supports those protections. do you support legal protections for fbi employees who report wrongdoing to their supervisors? >> thank you sir, i sternly do support protection of whistleblowers in general. the situation situation you race is one that also all of us and

law-enforcement have an obligation to support and protect as well. you are referring to the issues of the incidence of people who report through the chain of command. i understand that our step have been talking about the bill, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on it. what i would say is as we work through this issue, please know that again and it concerns the department raises are not out of a disagreement with the point of view of the protection of whistleblowers, again just making sure the fbi's intelligence gathering functions are also protected at the same time. we appreciate the opportunity to work with your step on these issues. it is particularly important to all of us in law-enforcement because whistleblowers to bring us important information. we often are going to individual citizens and asking them to bring us information. we are going to people who are witnesses outside of the government so we are trying to protect them as well. it is important that we have strong protections for whistleblowers who are inside

governments. >> you use one word that is central to my next issue, why would there be any reason for not providing these protections to fbi including people involved in the intelligence of the fbi, given that every other branch employee, even including in the intelligence community has that protection? and never words, what's special about something with the fbi? as much as we respect the fbi. >> i think you for your statement of respect for the fbi. i appreciate that in their behalf. certainly i think the dialogue we were having as i indicated hopefully highlights i was really support the objective of protecting whistleblowers and every federal agency included the fbi. we certainly support protecting those who report within the chain of command. as you yourself yourself noted within the intelligence committee. our hope is to make sure that we

retain the consistency of treatment on the intelligent community side for those issues also. i think you and your staff are working with us on those points. >> and i thank you for working with us and let me bring up one of those issues that was brought up in these conversations. one of the issues your department has raised is that allowing fbi employees to report wrongdoing to their chain of command could lead to too many complaints. what is wrong with too many complaints? you have a department of what 50,000 employees but you are the attorney general, you cannot know what is going on all over. seems to me you would invite every wrongdoing to be reported to someone so he could get corrected. you can't know about it. anyway, it should be seen as a good thing for fbi employees to report wrongdoing. the judiciary committee held a hearing last march where we looked at the government

accountability office report. that report found that in a five-year period, only three whistleblowers, one those cases. those took between eight - ten years. certainly something is wrong with that process. last process. lester the deputy attorney general's office told the government office that it would give whistleblowers updates on their cases. then they told me in a letter that they were just too busy to do that. i will will submit that letter for the record. it does not seem to me that the department has made improving fbi whistleblower protections a priority, almost 22 years ago the department promised it would issue a new regulation. two years later we don't have the proposed regulation. question number three, where are the changes the justice department said it was going to make in 2014? you were not even? you are not even attorney general then so i can't blame you. that's where we are. >> certainly sir, regardless of when, when, we will certainly endeavor to respond to on that point.

as i said before the concerns are always making sure we protect whistleblowers and also protect the fbi law-enforcement efforts and deal with the efforts raised while also being a member of the intelligence committee attract community. we are looking at specifically which of the bill and i thank you for that opportunity. >> here is something that i think you should give to us. one is the improvements that justice said it was making for justice employees was a better training rights and legal protection as whistleblowers. now you had a training session on this, there there was some sort of video at that training session and we discovered that video really did not say much about how whistleblowers are encouraged or protected in reporting up the chain of command and stuff like that. i'm not sure i remember exactly. i requested i requested a copy of

that training almost one month of go and have not received it. i i would like to have you get me a copy of the video. a simple thing, video. you video. you ought to be able to supply that. so not to harass you but he is going to come back to ask you a question and then i will be done. recently deputy attorney general issued a memo that the department will now focus on prosecuting individuals and not just ringing financial statements from corporations. as i said at the time, the department supplement was hsbc was a missed opportunity to bring criminal charges in an enormous money-laundering case. this administration failed to prosecute any wall street bankers or executives responsible for a financial meltdown. so the goal of the h memo is a

good one. this is something you and i agree on. president obama's former deputy attorney general has said that the h memo is quote, unquote impractical, not based in reality and will lead to very few actual cases against individuals. is president of former attorney general correct that this new policy is not based on reality, and how are you going to ensure that individuals are actually prosecuted? >> thank you sir, i think the memo does reflect the view within the department of justice that individuals have to be held accountable for their actions, particularly in the white collar area. i'm not aware of the context of those comments so i do know what was said about that. what i can tell you is this memo was the result of thought and a desire to encapsulates into a specific and clear policy

guidance that many of us in the department have and has for some time, we need need to look at individual accountability. particular as we do white-collar cases and interact with corporate counsel, with white collar big issue they are aware this is a focus of hours. as you may recall one facet of the policy that i think is very important is that when we cooperate when they cooperate with the government, provide us with information about wrongdoing within the ranks or their company has carried out, we will provide credit for that should it be reliable and accurate. they will not receive any credit if they do not also provide information about individuals who are involved in wrongdoing. it is to incentivize them and to put them on notice that our investigation will be looking at them also, we'll have our focus

on individuals as well. that is something we think will in fact generate results as we interact with corporations who do want to work with the government. where we do not have cooperation we still will continue our focus on individuals. if that mama will clearly put together in one clear, concise a policy statement, the directed to all the litigating components as well. when we are working at cases involving corporations that we have to make sure that we completely consider all of the individuals. certainly it is something that many offices have been doing for some time. if you look at the records for individuals who have been prosecuted, i would would note under our financial fraud enforcement task force, over 500 individuals have been prosecuted for financial crimes related to the housing market, financial market and the like. we wanted to make sure it was

clear, consistent and in one place and we are focusing on not just the entity but the individual. again, i'm not sure the basis for the comments and i cannot comment knowing their context. we believe very strongly in this policy. we believe it will provide results in our investigations and in our cases. we think it it is an important and necessary step in making sure that individuals whom we interact are a notice about what we expect from them, but that publicly people are aware of how we conduct our investigation. >> thank you very much. senator from minnesota. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all, attorney general lynch thank you for waiting for me, are and i think the chairman to freer your service and it is good to see you again. >> thank you sir.

>> i think it is good - mac there are not a lot of colleagues here to say this too but it is good that we are here doing our job, i think we may be say that we should continue to do our job when it comes to when the president puts forth a nominee for the supreme court. and examine that nominee's qualifications and experience. attorney general lynch, i think you're probably aware i have have been a vocal opponent of further consolidation and certain industries, particularly in the cable and broadband market. i appreciate the tough stance that the doj took of time warner cable, i know you cannot discuss the specifics of any deal that are currently being reviewed but i have a few questions about the way doj analyzes mergers and

acquisitions and how doj enforces conditions on when conditions have been, when mergers have been improved with conditions. as we we saw following comcast acquisition of universal, provisions can be difficult to enforce. they are not always terribly reliable. and also sometimes those positions expire, in general how come the department of justice assure that merger conditions actually have enough teeth to protect consumers in the long run? >> thank you, this is an important area of focus for the department of justice. i think people think of antitrust a sort of a draw area of law. i have found it to be one of the most vital areas of law because it deals directly with consumer protection issues. the devices and products that

people use every day in their lives and have them around in our homes and businesses. we seek to make sure they are protected in their dealings as they make decisions with hard earned dollars. when it comes to the enforcement of conditions in a merger agreement, the agreement may provide for certain types of conditions, certain types of reporting for example. we will conduct periodic reviews. certainly if a situation or circumstance where an individual corporation are not meeting those conditions, we would not hesitate to take the appropriate steps and take action there. either depending on how far along the transaction was, take action action or consult with the appropriate company and the appropriate board. when it comes to more specifics, i am happy to have staff from the antitrust provision provide a briefing to you on specifics we have done in the situations of that would be helpful.

>> and some of the cases i'm talking about telecom and comcast, nbc, for example, it seems, seems like -- i'm trying to figure out where falls whether it is fcc or doj that has the responsibility of enforcing conditions. it seems like someone they have fallen through the cracks. i was wondering how. >> there might be that middle place that neither entity is really reviewing as closely as they should? >> what seems like the fcc does not have the resources to enforce conditions. >> we are not able to comment on the fcc's abilities or resources. i have not had the discussions with him. i'm surly happy to provide a briefing for you. >> it is something the fcc and doj kind of work together on whether to allow a merger to go

on, very often conditions are put on an as we saw there, conditions are not followed. let me ask about something amy brought up, which is about combating terrorist recruitment in minnesota, and about the program that has put in place and we are one of the three cities for combating, it's called combating violent extremism. we prefer to call it community resilience. we have a large somali population and at first we were some young people who were recruited to somalia for fight with al shabab which is an al qaeda affiliate.

that kind of stop that happened when they came into somalia. now we have seen, and it is not all that many but it is enough to cause alarm and it is very alarming within the community obviously to use sons and some daughters who are going to syria or iraq to fight with isis. it was brought up about the funding, i just just want to bring up at the approach which is, this is not an easy needle to thread because we do not want to the communities to feel this is simply some kind of surveillance, of trying to find out -- on the other hand you

want to gain the trust of the community. is this something you've looked at a lot that you've looked at in minnesota, and what can we do to make those communities feel like we are partnering with them in a good way and not simply using this as a way of monitoring? >> ..

>> increasing the distrust between them and the government. we are approaching approaching every distinct community in america and we are seeking guidance from communities themselves. and the other thing can be imported to other communities. the other thing that has been happening in the twin cities that we are trying to import

other cities is this direct and very personal interaction between federal and local law enforcement and the distinct minority communities. and they had made a great personal connections within the community. without that personal connection and trust it is very easy to misinterpret actions and also i do think that we have to get out of government some time and realize that government isn't always the best voice for can conveying the appropriate message. we are working with madison avenue in silicon valley and trying to come up with effective programs to counter violent extremism. and so silicon valley is also very concerning. as we discussed it's not their goal to be a platform for terrorism and the concern is that they are being used as recruitment tools and repositories for material that is being absorbed by these

horrible young people of varying backgrounds and so they are trying to figure out can they on their own come up with programming that will counter what is coming across the airwaves and computer ways and can they use the terms of service to take down the content that is there. but knowing all the content is not going to be away and that it will be replaced, what can they do to generate the content that is supported. >> again, i think that that has a lot to do with interacting with the community. you say that changing the name has been helpful in that could've been done on the front side by saying how do you like this name. i mean, that feels like a pretty logical and easy thing to do. if you are talking about what

kind of content that you're going to, silicon valley needs to be talking to the community. if we are going to counter the propaganda that they are offering i think that there has to be a real cultural understanding and i'm closer to this obviously then you are. and that is that there has been a frustrating lack of resources and i think that they would rather see a good soccer field

quite frankly. or someplace to have fun. >> or an afterschool venue. >> yeah, i think that's what we are talking about and it has very little to do with the isis propaganda and saying that the people of the united states, the people of minnesota senators are fighting for us and we have some challenges and if our young people had better things to do that that might be helpful. and there was a promise of money and resources. and that would go a long way.

until he thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have been a good witness. any correspondence we have, i would appreciate answers as quickly as you can get them to us. the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]